WRIT PETITION 323/2025 on 30 December 2023

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner – Korea MarineTransport Co. Ltd. under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India inter aliachallenging the following:Transport Co. Ltd. under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India inter aliachallenging the following:

(i) The impugned order dated 30th December, 2023 passed by the Officeof Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO Jurisdiction, Ward 204, Delhi;of Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO Jurisdiction, Ward 204, Delhi;(ii) Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31[st]March, 2023, and;

(iii) Notification No. 9/2023-State Tax dated 22nd June, 2023.

3. The said notifications are challenged on the ground that the same areultra vires to the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Delhi Goodsand Service Tax Act, 2017.ultra vires to the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Delhi Goodsand Service Tax Act, 2017.

4. The validity of the impugned notifications was under consideration before this Court in a batch of petitions with the lead petition being W.P.(C)16499/2023 titled ‘DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.’. Inthe said batch of petitions, on 22nd April, 2025, the parties were heard atlength qua the validity of the impugned notifications and accordingly, thefollowing order was passed:

“4.Submissions have been heard in part. The broadchallenge to both sets of Notifications is on the groundthat the proper procedure was not followed prior to theissuance of the same. In terms of Section 168A, priorrecommendation of the GST Council is essential forextending deadlines. In respect of Notification no.9, therecommendation was made prior to the issuance of thesame. However, insofar as Notification No. 56/2023(Central Tax) the challenge is that the extension wasgranted contrary to the mandate under Section 168A ofthe Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 andratification was given subsequent to the issuance of thenotification. The notification incorrectly states that itwas on the recommendation of the GST Council. Insofaras the Notification No. 56 of 2023 (State Tax) isconcerned, the challenge is to the effect that the samewas issued on 11th July, 2024 after the expiry of thelimitation in terms of the Notification No.13 of 2022(State Tax).

5. In fact, Notification Nos. 09 and 56 of 2023 (CentralTax) were challenged before various other High Courts.The Allahabad Court has upheld the validity ofNotification no.9. The Patna High Court has upheld thevalidity of Notification no.56. Whereas, the GuwahatiHigh Court has quashed Notification No. 56 of 2023(Central Tax).

6. The Telangana High Court while not delving intothe vires of the assailed notifications, made certainobservations in respect of invalidity of Notification No.56 of 2023 (Central Tax).This judgment of theTelanganaHighCourtisnowpresentlyunder consideration by the Supreme Court in S.L.P No4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v.Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. TheSupreme Court vide order dated 21st February, 2025,passed the following order in the said case:

Analysis

“1. The subject matter of challenge before the HighCourt was to the legality, validity and propriety of theNotificationNo.13/2022dated5-7-2022&Notification Nos.9 and 56 of 2023 dated 31-3-2023 &8-12-2023 respectively.2.However, in the present petition, we areconcerned with Notification Nos.9 & 56/2023 dated31-3-2023 respectively.

3. These Notifications have been issued in thepurported exercise of power under Section 168 (A) ofthe Central Goods and Services Tax Act. 2017 (forshort, the "GST Act").

4. We have heard Dr. S. Muralidhar, the learnedSenior counsel appearing for the petitioner.

5. The issue that falls for the consideration of thisCourt is whether the time limit for adjudication ofshow cause notice and passing order under Section73 of the GST Act and SGST Act (Telangana GST Act)for financial year 2019-2020 could have beenextended by issuing the Notifications in questionunder Section 168-A of the GST Act.

6. There are many other issues also arising forconsideration in this matter.

7. Dr. Muralidhar pointed out that there is a cleavageof opinion amongst different High Courts of thecountry. 8. Issue notice on the SLP as also on theprayer for interim relief, returnable on 7-3-2025.”

7. In the meantime, the challenges were also pendingbefore the Bombay High Courtand the Punjab andHaryana High Court. In the Punjab and Haryana HighCourt vide order dated 12th March, 2025, all the writpetitions have been disposed of in terms of the interimorders passed therein. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

“65. Almost all the issues, which have been raisedbefore us in these present connected cases and havebeen noticed hereinabove, are the subject matter ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP.before us in these present connected cases and havebeen noticed hereinabove, are the subject matter ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP.

66. Keeping in view the judicial discipline, we refrainfrom giving our opinion with respect to the vires ofSection 168-A of the Act as well as the notificationsissued in purported exercise of power under Section168-A of the Act which have been challenged, and wedirect that all these present connected cases shall begoverned by the judgment passed by the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the decision thereto shall bebinding on these cases too.

67. Since the matter is pending before the Hon'bleSupreme Court, the interim order passed in thepresent cases, would continue to operate and wouldbe governed by the final adjudication by the SupremeCourt on the issues in the aforesaid SLP-4240-2025.68. In view of the aforesaid, all these connected casesare disposed of accordingly along with pendingapplications, if any.”

8. The Court has heard ld. Counsels for the partiesfor a substantial period today. A perusal of the abovewould show that various High Courts have taken aview and the matter is squarely now pending before theSupreme Court.

9. Apart from the challenge to the notifications itself,various counsels submit that even if the same areupheld, they would still pray for relief for the partiesas the Petitioners have been unable to file replies dueto several reasons and were unable to avail of personalhearings in most cases. In effect therefore in most-cases the adjudication orders are passed exparte.Huge demands have been raised and even penaltieshave been imposed.10.Broadly, there are six categories of cases whichare pending before this Court. While the issue concerning the validity of the impugned notificationsis presently under consideration before the SupremeCourt, this Court is of the prima facie view that,depending upon the categories of petitions, orders canbe passed affording an opportunity to the Petitionersto place their stand before the adjudicating authority.Insomecases,proceedingsincludingappellateremedies may be permitted to be pursued by thePetitioners, without delving into the question of thevalidity of the said notifications at this stage.11.The said categories and proposed reliefs havebeen broadly put to the parties today. They may seekinstructions and revert by tomorrow i.e., 23rd April,2025.”

5. Thereafter, on 23rd April, 2025, this Court, having noted that thevalidity of the impugned notifications is under consideration before theSupreme Court, had disposed of several matters in the said batch of petitionsafter addressing other factual issues raised in the respective petitions.Additionally, while disposing of the said petitions, this Court clearly observedthat the validity of the impugned notifications therein shall be subject to theoutcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No.4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissionerof State Tax & Ors.

6. However, in cases where the challenge is to the parallel StateNotifications, the same have been retained for consideration by this Court.The lead matter in the said batch is W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled Engineers IndiaLimited v. Union of India &Ors.

7. However, on facts, the submission of the Petitioner is that a detailedreply to the Show Cause Notice dated 24[th]November, 2023 has been filedwhich has not been considered in the impugned order.

8. The Court has perused the impugned order. The relevant portion of thesame is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

“‘Whereas, a notice DRC-01 under section 73 ofDGST/CGST Act, 2017 was issued to the taxpayer withdetails of tax demand as an attachment with the adviceto pay the tax along with interest in DRC-03 withinstipulated time given in the notice.

And whereas, the taxpayer through the notice DRC-01under section 73 was also advised to file theirobjections/reply/supportingdocumentsinDRC-06within stipulated time i.e. 30 days from the date ofissuance of the notice, if the taxpayer is not agreeingwith the proposed demand of tax and interest in thenotice DRC-01.The taxpayer filed their reply. On scrutiny of the same,it has been observed that the same is not acceptable asincomplete, not duly supported by adequate documents,without proper justification and thus unable to clarifythe issue.

Since, the reply filed is not clear and satisfactory, thedemand of tax and interest conveyed via DRC-01 isconfirmed, with the direction to deposit the amountmentioned in DRC-07 within three months from the dateof receipt of this demand notice, failing which recoveryproceedings u/s 79 of CGST Act will be initiated and theactions as per law will be initiated without furtherreference.”

9. On a perusal of the reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 24[th]November, 2023, it would show that various grounds have been raised by thePetitioner which have not been considered in the impugned order at all.

10. Accordingly the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication by theAdjudicating Authority.

11. It is however made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of theimpugned notifications is left open. Any order passed by the Adjudicating Authority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Courtin S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. AssistantCommissioner of State Tax & Ors. and of this Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024titled Engineers India Limited v. Union of India &Ors qua the Statenotification.

12. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The AdjudicatingAuthority shall issue a notice for personal hearing to the Petitioner. Thepersonal hearing notice shall be communicated to the Petitioner on thefollowing e-mail address:

Email ID:[REDACTED]

13. The reply filed by the Petitioner dated 24[th]November, 2023, along withthe submissions made by the Petitioner in the personal hearing shall beconsidered before passing the fresh order.

14. All the rights and remedies of the parties are left open. Access to theGST Portal, if not already available, shall be ensured to be provided to thePetitioner to enable access to the notices and related documents.

15. Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications are alsodisposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUDGE

MAY 7, 2025/kk/rks

(corrected & released on 13[th]May, 2025)

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTAJUDGE